[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming. -------------------------------------------------------------------In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ 2017

--As of January 20, 2017

A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Guest Blog: The fracking fight escalates The ultra-Green Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which is behind these local bans, is pushing "rights" without responsibility for negative consequences. By Marita Noon

The fracking fight escalates

The ultra-Green Community Environmental
Legal Defense Fund, which is behind these local bans, is pushing
"rights" without responsibility for negative consequences.

On November 5, one town in Ohio and three in Colorado passed ballot measures designed to ban or temporarily halt hydraulic fracturing—the brief (3-5 day) phase, often referred to as “fracking”—that is essential to the advanced oil-and-gas extraction processes that have given America the lead in global energy production. A fourth Colorado town awaits a recount.

Initial election results showed the moratorium in Broomfield, CO, failed by 13 votes. However, on November 13, after all the overseas, military, provisional and other outstanding ballots were counted, it had passed by 17 votes. A margin of less than 0.5% triggers an automatic recount—leaving the final outcome currently unknown. In Bowling Green and Youngstown, Ohio, the opposite happened. Similar proposed bans against fracking were defeated.

Of the four votes in Colorado, Tisha Schuller, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) calls the Boulder [see photo at left] and Lafayette votes merely “symbolic,” and noted that “Lafayette’s last new well permit was in the early 1990s and Boulder’s last oil and gas well was plugged in 1999.”

However, Fort Collins, CO, is near the promising production of the Niobrara Shale. The Fort Collins city council passed a resolution encouraging voters to reject the proposed moratorium. And, in Broomfield, the city council in August had entered into a memorandum of understanding that would allow energy company Sovereign to drill 21 wells—as long as stringent standards are met. In these cities, these 5-year bans will bite.

In Ohio, the Oberlin ban is, likewise, “symbolic,” as Oberlin, a college town, has no drilling plans. Bowling Green, which rejected the ban, also has no drilling plans. However, in the Mahoning Valley where Youngstown is located, there is current oil-and-gas activity. In Youngstown, which is a depressed former steel town, residents have twice voted down a fracking ban.

The Akron Beacon Journalreports: “the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 396 spent more than $74,000 trying to defeat the amendment. The union called it a job-killer.” Supporters of the ban claim “the loss can be explained by voters who are hard up for the jobs energy development brings.” (Note: “energy development” does bring jobs.)

Within the past year, Longmont, CO, became the first town in the state to ban fracking and Mora County, NM, became the first county in New Mexico to ban the “extraction of oil, natural gas, or other hydrocarbons.”

National Geographicstates: “The wins provide momentum for the national movement to ban hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.” Former Colorado State House Representative B. J. Nikkel is quoted as saying: “This is round one in a much longer match.” Mora County Commissioner John Olivasdeclared: “We’re ready for this fight.”

Fracking opponent Gretchen Goldman, an analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, said: “The decision of whether or not hydraulic fracturing occurs in these Colorado communities may ultimately lie with the courts, where the city of Longmont is already being sued by COGA and the state of Colorado over its fracking ban.”

Because fracking is governed by the states, the bans put cities and counties at odds with state—and even federal—laws. According to a New York Times (NYT) article written at the time of Longmont’s fracking ban passage (November 2012), Colorado’s Democrat Governor John W. Hickenlooper warned residents of a lawsuit from the state and insisted that only the state has “the authority to regulate drilling.”

Ohio’s Department of Natural Resources also, according to RC 1509, has the “sole and exclusive authority to regulate the permitting, location, and spacing of oil and gas wells and production operations within the state …” A recent lawsuit in Ohio challenged the idea of “preemption.” The City of Munroe Falls argued “home-rule” authority to regulate gas-drilling operations and won the case in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, but was reversed by the Ninth District Court of Appeals in what has been described as a “knock-out punch.” The case will now go before the Ohio State Supreme Court with a decision expected this spring.

In July 2013, Hickenlooper’s administration joined COGA in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Longmont’s fracking ban.

The NYT states that seven former mayors of Longmont fought the ban and cites Bill Swenson, who said the ban was “contrary to state laws.” Swenson believes: “We are, in effect, taking your property.”

In New Mexico, where a lawsuit was filed on November 11 against the Mora County drilling ban, former State Land Commissioner Pat Lyons agrees. Under his leadership, many tracts were leased for potential drilling in Mora County, which he said: “could be a big boon for the economy.” Lyons told me Mora’s drilling ban is a “private property takings.”

However, the lawsuit against Mora County and its leaders didn’t go the “takings” route. Instead, the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, along with one individual and two New Mexico landowners, argue that Mora County’s ordinance violates their rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as corresponding rights under the New Mexico Constitution. The suit alleges that the Commission lacks authority to pass this unconstitutional ordinance that impacts property rights, due process and First Amendment rights.

In 1978, New Mexico passed the New Mexico Oil and Gas Act, which created the Oil Conservation Commission and Oil Conservation Division, which are vested with complete “jurisdiction, authority and control” regarding the development of oil or gas. The Division regulates oil-and-natural gas activity within the State so as to protect, among other things, fresh water, public health, safety and the environment, and issues rules for “safety procedures for drilling and production of oil and gas wells.”

Unlike the Colorado lawsuits, the suit against Mora Country has not, to date, been joined by New Mexico government. Lyons believes New Mexico’s Land Commissioner, Ray Powell, “should be taking a strong stand for New Mexico’s children. He should be one of the lead participants in the fight for New Mexico.”

Lyons is referencing the fact that in New Mexico, revenues from oil-and-gas activity on state lands go directly into the Permanent Fund and each tract has a specific beneficiary assigned to it. Some of the beneficiaries that will be losing out of the millions of dollars that could be generated over the life of the Mora County leases include: the NM School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, the NM School for the Deaf, the NM State Hospital, Carrie Tingley Hospital, the NM Boys School, NM Institute of Mining and Technology, and Eastern NM University, as well as K-12 schools throughout the state.

The New Mexico civil rights lawsuit was filed by the Mountain States Legal Foundation, whose President, William Perry Pendley, sent me the following statement:

“The lawlessness we have seen emanating from Washington, D.C., has spread like a wildfire across the country. When elected politicians, senior administration officials, and career bureaucrats proudly proclaim that the Constitution is irrelevant and the law is whatever they say it is, it is little wonder that officials across the country follow their bad example. From coast to coast, isolated units of local government have declared that, regardless of what the federal and state constitutions or federal and state laws provide, they will bar their residents from using their property, creating jobs, and generating revenue and if the locals do not like it, then they can sue. I am proud that landowners in Mora County and the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico have the courage to demand adherence to constitutional liberties and the rule of law and have asked Mountain States Legal Foundation to represent them in that important battle.”

As Pendley indicates, all of these fracking and drilling bans and/or moratoria are part of an attempted national movement led by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which has drafted model legislation, known as the Community Bill of Rights, for communities—such as Mora County, NM; Oberlin, OH; and Lafayette, CO.

The “symbolic” votes in communities with no oil-and-gas development are part of a strategy to target Left-leaning constituencies where ordinances can be passed and momentum can be built. Addressing the approach, Nikkel observed: “As the debate moves from places like Boulder and Lafayette—which come with highly Democratic constituencies—to purple Colorado, you’re going to see a different outcome.”

Because of efforts to ban fracking—which, along with horizontal drilling, has just allowed the U.S. to pass a milestonein the march toward energy self-sufficiency—the House of Representatives has drafted the Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act (H.R. 2728), which would keep states in charge of hydraulic fracturing as they have always done and keep the EPA out of it.

As one observer put it, “When we talk about banning fracking, we’re talking about outlawing a process that is absolutely critical to developing our vast energy resources and intentionally forfeiting billions in economic activity and tax revenue.”

Addressing the election results, Jon Haubert, Communications Director for Coloradoans for Responsible Energy Development, added: “The need for education about one of our state’s—and nation’s—most important topics clearly won’t be going away. In Colorado especially, there are high standards and model regulations in place to ensure that the health and safety of our communities come first. As we discovered in these elections, not enough know that.” Haubert placed some of the blame “squarely on the oil and natural gas industry for not properly educating the public.”

Russell Mendell, statewide director for Frack Free Colorado, has declared: “This is the point in history where communities need to decide if they want to stay addicted to hydrocarbons and fossil fuels or move toward sustainable energy.” In response, many have proposed that if communities with potential oil-and-gas development choose to ban it, they should truly break their so-called hydrocarbon addiction and quit using oil and gas.

The outcome of the fracking fight will be fought in the court of public opinion, as much as it will be in state and federal courtrooms. Though environmental groups have declared victory in this round, the fight is far from over. Earlier this year, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown of California signed a law in September that specifically allows fracking. Across the country, people—from Youngstown, OH, to California’s Governor Brown—understand that “energy development” brings jobs and economic growth. They understand that energy makes America great.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Whether in European based Climate
Change Conferences aimed at World Taxation and involuntary Wealth
Redistribution for waste and abuse, or
in Domestic battles over the environment with those being irresponsible to
humanity and wishing to play god in the lives of others just for the hell of it
with minimal to no change in bettering the natural state of the earth, we are
constantly in a battle of ideas and reason over Totalitarianism given momentum
by willing and useful idiots of the corrupt elites.

The Primary New World Governance Paper
that people need to read is the Lowy Institute (Think tank) of Australia’s Peter Wilcoxen and Warwick J. McKibbin
February 2009 publication:“The Economic
and Environmental Effects of Border Tax Adjustments for Climate Policy”

I encourage readers:Download and save a copy while it is
available, as it moves around and will eventually disappear altogether except
for elite access otherwise.

p.3 "In 2006, then French Prime
Minister Dominique de Villepin suggested that countries that do not join a
post-2012 international treaty on climate change should face additional tariffs
on their industrial exports. The European Parliament's (2005/2049) resolution
was focused on penalizing countries such as the United States for
non-participation in the Kyoto Protocol."

p.4 "A sufficiently large carbon tax
imposed in a major economy would lower global oil prices and lead to higher
consumption in countries with litle or no carbon tax."

The economic one-world model in the
newspeak of Communist macro-economics is to look at the world as a
"G-Cube."

p.4
"G-Cubed is an econometric intertemperol general equilibrium model of the
world economy with regional disaggregation and sectoral detail."

p.5 [The G-Cube
is]"divided into ten regions...Each region is further decomposed into a
household sector, a government sector, a financial sector, the twelve
industries...and a capital goods producing sector."

p.23 Sectors in
the G-Cubed Model

1. Electric
Utilities

2. Gas
utilities

3. Petroleum
refining

4. Coal mining

5. Crude oil
and gas extraction

6. Other mining

7. Agriculture

8. Forestry and
Wood products

9. Durable
goods

10. Nondurables

11.
Transportation

12. Services

p.6 "We
assume that all agents in each economy have identical preferences over foreign
and domestic varieties of each particular commodity. (Anything else would
require time-series data on imports of products from each country of origin to
each industry, which is not only unavailable but difficult to imagine
collecting). The result is a system of demand equations for domestic goods and
imports from every region."

In other words, the authors are saying
that the coming One World Government will force a universal international
equality until you and I and the rest of humanity has almost no personal or
ethnic identity in what we buy or sell. The logical regression of this is that
we are to be molded to one type of unidentified politically and One World Government
(OWG) sanctioned religious lukewarm commonality that the OWG molds to its will
and common purpose.

p.8
"Within each region we assume household behavior can be modeled by a
representative agent who maximizes an intertemporal utility function subject to
the constraint that the present value of consumption be equal to the sum of
human wealth and initial financial assets."

Or put another way: “Equality of modest
poverty to be shared by all” but the ruling elites.

p.9
"Finally, the supply of household capital services is determined by
consumers themselves who invest in household capital. ...the household
investment decision is symmetrical with that of firms."

Or put another way: More output
by the masses = less starvation and less reduction in the comforts
provided by or through the 12 industries listed above.

They then add this line of advocating adding
a collective financial slavery to the New World Order or Global Governance in
which each region is to accumulate its own additional public debt on top of all
that they already owe in the world economy.And how does the region of its collective nations pay down the new and
additional debts it must now create?

"...the government could pay off the
debt by briefly raising taxes a lot...."

There is no such thing as
"brief" to raising taxes a lot. Nor is there a magical sustained
increase in income if the resources have already been drained and reallocated.

p. 10
"...allowing for involuntary unemployment...assuming that all economies
are always at full employment, which might be fine for a long-run model, is
clearly inappropriate during the first few years after the shock."

Or in other words: A few years of
massive unemployment, starvation, riots, are to be expected. When they have
starved enough, the masses will come begging and be forced into compliance.

p.11 "For
all regions other than China, we assume that the exchange rates are free to
float and that financial capital is freely mobile."

The model predicts a one world economy
for the 9 regions other than China, and for a Chinese Empire region in order to
appease the Chinese.

They continue.

p.12 "The
first step in computing a carbon-tax border adjustment on a given import would
be to determine the total amount of fossil energy that was used directly or
indirectly in production of the good."

p.13
"Tracing energy consumption all the way back to raw materials is possible
using input-output tables."

p.14
"...simulations we ran using the G-Cubed model to explore the effects of
border adjustments. We began by constructing a hypothetical carbon tax
beginning at $20 per metric ton of carbon and rising by $0.50 per year to
$40."

p.15 "In
all four simulations, additional government revenue generated by the border
adjustments and the carbon tax itself was used to finance additional government
spending in the corresponding region (that is, each region's fiscal deficit was
held constant)."

In other words, their model was given
bad data in all 4 scenarios, and the pitch is made that new spending magically
appears with border adjustments while being also deficit neutral. This is
called Genocide, combined with the seizing of assets within a designated zone
or territory. As for Carbon tax increases...higher tariffs = less trade = less
revenue.

p.18 "The
dollar weakens in both [US] simulations..."

Or in other words, the US does not
have any benefit in belonging to the Climate Change, which is just a propaganda "nudge" tool to get the masses to believe into a New World Order, and to make "misapplied environmentalism" into a part of a religious substitute for agnostic and atheistically inclined segments of humanity.

Keep to the Motto: "Better to be aware and at least moderately informed, than to be oblivious, leading to your own more serious hurt or destruction for your not paying attention to what's going on around you and affecting you now or eventually."

No comments:

Post a Comment

U.S. Natural Born Citizen Defined

To be a United States Natural Born Citizen, he (or she) must be one of sole nationality, so that were he (or she) ever stripped of citizenship in the United States, he (or she) would be declared as “Stateless”.
Neither parent may be of foreign citizenship, and the child must be born 100% within United States jurisdiction and 100% a U.S. Citizen with NO FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP (NOR A CLAIM OF SUCH IN ANY WAY) AT BIRTH.
Anyone acquiring or possessing ANY FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH IS NOT A UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Christian Foundations Lost From U.S. Education

Islamic Terror attacks since 9/11/2001...Why Islam is NOT a religion of "peace".

Followers

This is a Moderated Blog

Any submissions of viewer comments to posts that are clear prevarications, or perceived as intentionally disruptive will not be posted. Those who wish to do more than just comment, but make their case in a reasonable fashion of an opposing view, need to source their posts in factual sources in order to be considered for posting. All moderation is at the sole discretion of the moderator.

Search This Blog

Subscribe To

Psalm for the Day

About Me

A Born-Again Christian Conservative and Fundamentalist. A Republican with a very pro-defense, pro-US Cold War view of politics and the world. I also have, as a non-Jew, a Pro-Israel political and religious position as a born-again Christian Conservative.